Holland, Searcy Gene
This text of Holland, Searcy Gene (Holland, Searcy Gene) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
\QQ¢:\ \5 .-30\5 §eafcy éene_`\~¢o((m(§¥im*r\cs (""\"“\M‘\\’\ bian (Oc\@ S~t'('\ P\\o€_\ {:\<;05&,1) C[.erk , C~wm( CM~( 610 AP?U(S '83,_ Og‘l O| P'O» E>ox \ZLY>OS Ca€z'l»l S+-M~~On RECENED|N Q`“SH°‘TX` qB"… ' COURT oF chMlNALAPPEALS APR Q€".- wR 33,03q-@; 20 2015 _m' at 'JO' (0`8€(5 ` A Abel Acosta, Clerk _D€¢xr l\/\r. A~c.ag*\~¢_ ; d `.'D`€&s€' .&Jv`;v\§ +\’\»C €..\'\C,\OSQA Q€,$`oov\$€ ~`~o 5“"1‘€("€'$ Qe()\j ov‘\ \/dv'\“¥ up "\‘LBC*LS C’°"`\DWS `\v\ °“\'{/\e P\*`\)ove cause +-o `~H\e "\'Mw\e.<§`ao`:\ce Q:H=¢w\\`on 610 -\A/\Q C,c>~.,u~t a § t\o.n\L, \[ou “\C)r jou(` l pmm ">"' 0& S¥‘S"~ou\c_£_ ‘-\r\ ~.\'('\\`S w\\=r%v;(`, § \nc,e,re,\ \/t , S NU. 61395-A EX PARTE § IN THE DIBTRICT CUURT § DF BRAZDRIA EUUNTY, TEXAS SEAREY EENE HULLAND § 23rd JUDIEIAL DISTRIET APPLIBENT'S.RESPUNSE TD STATE'S REPLY TU PETITIDN FUR URIT UF HAEEAS CDRPUS \ Applicant believes that the court will Find that the State has not directly addressed the grounds of the Applicant's writ of Habeas Eorpus nor have they provided ample proof that Applicant's conviction is not defective and would submit the FJllouing: I. Applicant urges this Honorable.Eourt to request the Blerk's record and the Reporter's record for Eause No..61622 as well as the Reporter's record for the above cause. without these records,`the! Court cannot accurately address the grounds submitted by Applicant in this cause. II. ln ground one, Applicant claims a jurisdictional defect because he was convicted in a court he did nat appear in. The State claims that local rules alluded them to transfer jurisdiction. Homever, if Applicant was convicted in the 25rd District Eourt and that court holds jurisdiction, why has the lhgth District Ecurt replied to Applicant‘s_writ of Habeas Eorpus? The question of jurisdiction is not clear= III. In Applicant's second ground, Applicant argues that his plea was involuntary because the indictment did not accurately reflect his role in the crime. All parts of.the indictment must be true. A review of the transcripts for both causes on May 12, 2010 should reveal that Judge Robert May questioned State's counsel with regard to Applicant's role in the crime at which time Eounsel replied that Applicant did not cause the bodily injury. -The State proceeded despite knowing that the indictment was inaccurate. Eventhough Applicant can be charged as a party to the crime, the indictment must reflect his role in the crime. IV. In his third groundj Applicant claims a double jeopardy viola- tion. As seen in Applicant's exhibit of the docket sheet for cause no. 61622, Applicant was called`into the 1h9th District Court on May 12, 2010. Two cause numbers were still active. Judge Robert May questioned State's counsel with regard to Applicant's role in the crime. The State accurately states that no jury was impaneled and no witnesses were called. However, this was a plea hearing. By questioning State‘s counsel about the indictments, the court makes Btatejs counsel a witness and attaches jeopardy to both causes. ln Brown v. State 900 B.M;'Zd 005, 007 (1995) it states, 'A person is placed in jeopardy of life or liberty at the moment jeopardy attaches to a charge, and if prosecutor subsequently dismisses that charge, the State loses the opportunity to try that charge forever... The timing of the State's abandonment of the count or charge is thus crucial in determining whether the State preserved its right to subsequently prosecute defendant for that offense.' lf the State dismissed the charge on Cause No. 61622 in court on May 12, 2010 after entering the court room and questioning State's counsel and prior to prosecuting Eause No. 61095, then a double jeopardy viola- _tion occurred. CUNELUSIUN MHEREFURE PREMISES EUNSIDEREDy Applicant prayerfully requests_ this Honorable Court to review all of the court records for Eause Nos. 61622 and 61095 to accurately appraise Applicant's request for an out-of~time appeal via Habeas Corpus. Applicant requests that the Court grant relief as requested. Respectfully Submitted, 5earcy Eene Holland #1647165 Applicant Pro Se Lynaugh Unit 1090 B. Highway 2037 Ft. Stockton, TX 79735 CERTIFIEATE 0F SERVICE I certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was mailed to Eounsel fior the State, David Bosserman, Asst. District Attorney, 111 E. Locust, Suite AUBA, Angleton, TX 77515.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Holland, Searcy Gene, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holland-searcy-gene-texapp-2015.